Re: 3 packages 1 uniform version

I usually just leave out versions for subordinate packages. For example, XML::Validator::Schema has a VERSION but XML::Validator::Schema::Parser does not. Is there a reason you need all the packages to have versions?

-sam

Comment on Re: 3 packages 1 uniform version

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: 3 packages 1 uniform version by jonasbn (Scribe) on Feb 09, 2008 at 20:38 UTC
Well yes, it is a poor mans configuration management system. So we have a package for each sort of environment we have (dev, test, prod). So the files are versioned as the same version agnostic to the actual environment context they are used in and we can specify the version as a requirement in the actual applications.	[reply]
Re^3: 3 packages 1 uniform version by proceng (Scribe) on Feb 10, 2008 at 17:09 UTC
You did not note what platform... Subversion, CVS and RCS are all good (free) candidates for revision control, with the bonus that each will allow you to add a description of changes and revert to an earlier version if necessary. That way you can check out v1.01 for development (or use a tree setup where v1.0.x is dev, 1.1.x is test, 1.2.x is prod) so that you only have one directory tree to backup/maintain. YMMV ;-)	[reply]